Return-path: Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.176]:53129 "EHLO ik-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757056AbYCYS7y (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:59:54 -0400 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c28so1075327ika.5 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240803251159p70de1d51jc739b9d141922da3@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080325_190000_207026_3FE410AE) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:59:49 +0200 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Chatre, Reinette" Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] wireless: convert !X & Y to !(X & Y) iniwl4965_is_fat_tx_allowed() Cc: "John W. Linville" , "Roel Kluin" <12o3l@tiscali.nl>, "Zhu, Yi" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, lkml In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <47E9226C.7090403@tiscali.nl> <20080325174227.GB3026@tuxdriver.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Chatre, Reinette wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:42 AM, John W. Linville wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:30:58AM -0700, Chatre, Reinette wrote: > >> On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:04 AM, Roel Kluin wrote: > >> > >>> from include/linux/ieee80211.h:274: > >>> #define IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH 0x0002 --- > >>> ! has a higher priority than & > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> > >>> --- > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c > >>> b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c > >>> index d727de8..6576757 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c > >>> @@ -4589,7 +4589,7 @@ static u8 > >>> iwl4965_is_fat_tx_allowed(struct iwl4965_priv *priv, > >>> > >>> if (sta_ht_inf) { > >>> if ((!sta_ht_inf->ht_supported) || > >>> - (!sta_ht_inf->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH)) > >>> + (!(sta_ht_inf->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH))) > return 0; > >>> } > >> > >> This patch has already been acked and merged into wireless-testing, > >> and afaik already pushed further upstream. > > > > Yes, but FWIW the problem exists in the 2.6.25 stream as well. > > I've been holding-back a patch to fix it there, trying to decide if it > > is worth creating the merge conflict to fix it there. I'm inclined > > to think it is better to let things lay as they are and send that > > patch for the -stable series once 2.6.25 ships. > > > > Any thoughts on that? > > I see. The patch is small and I thus assume a merge conflict will be > easy to resolve. Yet ... I do not know what is really involved in the > upstream code movements, while I know that you do. If you say it is > better to wait until stable then I am ok with it. I have to find the patch but I believe we've published a fix for this long before this particular patch was born. Anyhow if HT is enabled in 2.6.25 I would prefer a conflict then a bug. Thanks Tomas